The Israeli government will receive a first order of 20 JSF by the end of 2015, with

Israel
is still considering whether or not it wants to purchase the Lockheed
Martin F-35 Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter)
aircraft, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli government
officials discuss the expensive investment.

Previous approval
granted Israel the right to purchase 75 JSFs, but Israel initially
only wants just 20 aircraft. The country expects to pay more
than $140 million for each F-35, and it's unknown if Israel will be
able to install all of its own equipment into the
aircraft.

Previously, the U.S. government said it would remove
some of its own hardware and offer an alternative or allow the
purchasing nation to make slight alternations. Continued
negotiations take place, but it's likely Israel will fulfill the rest
of its order after the first 20 aircraft are accepted.

"We
work according to the assumption that other countries
will receive the jet, and that is why we need to be the first,”
an IDF officer recently disclosed. "The JSF not only
provides unbelievable capabilities, but will also assist Israel in
boosting its deterrence.”

After agreed upon configurations,
Israel will begin to receive its new aircraft by the end of 2015,
with future orders expected to arrive shortly after. Although
there are some early contract problems, Israel and the United States
are expected to come to a fair agreement as quickly as
possible.

Lockheed Martin has been given approval to sell the
aircraft to select countries, but cannot offer certain electronics
and hardware aboard the aircraft.

The Australian military is
interested in purchasing up to 100 JSF, but want to see additional
testing information before purchasing the costly aircraft. If
an agreement with Lockheed cannot be finalized, it's possible
Australia will work with Russia. Canada is expected
to purchase up to 65 JSF -- negotiations are ongoing with
other countries as well.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

So while that 2.3 trillion may not have been directly borrowed to pay for cutting taxes it was borrowed to pay for other things that that 2.3 trillion could have payed for were it collected.

We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush, so obviously the majority of that 2.3 trillion that fell between 01 and 08 (the cuts don't expire until end of '10) could have been spent in full to pay for things instead of borrowing that whole 4 trillion.

So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"

As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because". Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded, allowing pseudo-intelligent people like you to pick over every individual word instead of looking at the overall meaning of my message which was brief and made while I was "working"

So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms. The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts, is a lot faster than describing the overall fiscal outlay situation of the United States over 8 years and how not collecting 2.3 trillion dollars meant it was essentially borrowed instead.

quote: Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

But it is NOT "spending 2.3 trillion". Moving the goalposts fallacy.

quote: We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush

With deficits that got smaller as we got closer to '08 while the tax cuts remained static. Further, Obama's tax increases STILL forecast (according to the WH's own numbers, independent results are higher) greater increases to the debt than what we've seen during the Bush years. Conclusion: Tax cuts do NOT cause debt. Overspending causes debt.

Actually, I can. And I did. And will continue to. And, coincidentally, it will continue to be an accurate assessment. Even with your immature "hehehe" added on the end there.

quote: As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because".

Because of what? Because of your grossly inaccurate claim that Bush "spent" $2.3 trillion in tax money that was never collected. Further, your use of the word "but" connotates a negation of the assertion that the tax cuts are massive; the implication was the opposite of what you now claim. Perhaps you are not as familiar with reality as your earlier post suggests you think you are?

quote: Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded

You suggested that the assertion of Obama's tax increases being "massive" was outside reality.

quote: So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms.

Instead of wanking over a former President, you should instead say "Our Congress has a problem controlling spending." That would be the most accurate - and, coincidentally, the least politically "hot-button" - means of describing our debt.

quote: The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts

You spent the first three paragraphs of the very post I'm responding to trying to explain how that money WAS spent. Cognitive dissonance, much?

On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only. Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have. You know what, you are so literal and tunnel-visioned.. let me make it real simple for you

I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2. How many lollipops do I owe now?

Our Congress has a problem controlling spending, and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.

As far as this exchange is concerned, yes, because the fallacious comment I wished to address was about tax cuts.

quote: Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have.

So you recognize that we spent money we didn't have. That doesn't seem like the source of the problem to you?

quote: I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2.

I thought you were going to make it real simple. Why are you using lollipops as currency? That's just stupid.

quote: Our Congress has a problem controlling spending

Yes. That is the source of the problem.

quote: and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'm not seeing where anything I said is being refuted. Are you sure you don't actually agree with me?

quote: I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I would offer instead that if you're owing lollipops all over town, you should be the last person to suggest to anyone that they "don't get it".

I agreed with you that I didn't mean to say/sound like we literally spent money on tax cuts in my 2nd comment, and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on. Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement, your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.

quote: Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement

Nothing you have said has been clear, especially if you think you're agreeing.

quote: your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.

I think you're just projecting your own behavior onto me. What "whole of the argument" am I missing? Abstaining from collecting taxes is demonstrably not the same as spending taxes. There is no "whole of the argument" to miss. The fact is that the initial comment was wrong, and you've been wasting time trying to obfuscate that fact - perhaps to salve a wounded ego, I suspect - with nonsensical drivel. I'm sorry you're gripped by such crippling insecurity, but here and now is your opportunity to overcome such a disability and grow into a better, smarter person. You're welcome.

Please tell me which part(s) of what I said was nonsensical (like saying tax cuts don't add to the debt because deficits were going down (cite source?) when there are any number of factors that go into deficits and debt creation, and in any case the amount added to the gross debt of the US was NOT coming down in the later years under Bush. The deficit is merely the difference between on the budget federal gov. receipts vs. outlays per fiscal year [kind of like horsepower, which isn't an actual measurement of anything just an equation based on torque and rpm], while the debt is like the torque in that it is a real figure which in this case we have to pay back),

which part(s) were unclear (like the reason for your inability to understand that I clarified my meaning of, and intention with, using the word "spent" but you continued in later comments to beat into the ground that we definitely did not spend money directly on tax cuts, which I agreed with in my 2nd comment and had in fact not intended to mean in the first place),

and which part(s) I was trying to obfuscate (like taking a couple paragraphs worth of comment apart sometimes sentence by sentence so as to make the whole of the posting less coherent and comment on each piece sometimes each sentence as though this were a comedic-talent pissing contest).

Any conversation or argument is an evolving discussion, yet you continue to comment as if my original comment is my current, exact, and unwavering stance without taking into consideration that I have clarified my meaning ad nauseum: that we didn't collect 2.3 trillion in taxes and yet spent much more than that over the last 9 years for which that 2.3 trillion could have helped "shore us up" in a fiscal sense. It is your apparent inability to grasp what I am saying and my love of argument/debate that makes me want to continue to comment, not a wounded ego.

If you look back through our comments, you seem to be commenting by way of juxtapositions your stance on my original comment and how that original comment does not correlate with my more recent postings. It's almost as if you are arguing with two people: the "original me" who didn't explain thoroughly enough my meaning of the word "spent", and the "current me" to whom you are seem to be saying "that's not what you said originally and you can't take it back now, nah-nah-nanah-nah!"